Category Archives: gods law

The Benefits of Electing an Independent?

As an Independent American I am concerned at our dysfunctional State legislature. I am concerned about my district (senate Dist. 16) with a 16 year incumbent (Curt Bramble) with a 37 percent conservative ranking from Grassroots Index equaling an  ‘F’ grade for his lifetime voting record.


Whether it is Curt Bramble’s four-month abortion bill from the 2016 session, or the SB54 fiasco from 2014 session trying to short circuit the ‘Count My Vote’ movement and the grassroots move to open primaries to more candidates, or his vote for SB296 in 2015 to allow gender neutral showers, locker rooms or bathrooms. Bramble hasn’t met a fee or a tax that he hasn’t liked and voted for in his 16 years. What is a good man suppose to do, if not actively run against such a professional politician.


I understand Bramble is a very powerful man with 16 years of power-building under his belt, as well as having held a seat on the National Board of Directors of the American Legislative Exchange Council.  Or his pushing for School Vouchers – which the Utah Voters defeated by 66%. Or the gerrymandering of his District in 2012 for political expediency.


But do we want a man so dismissive of the voters wishes, so isolated from the voter’s viewpoints and ‘knowing better’ than the voters, or not trusting the voters as to over-ride multiple referendum issues in the last few years (Count My Vote, Ethics Commission, etc.).


I am Jason Christensen running for the Utah State Senate seat for District 16 on the Independent American ticket as a leader with Constitutionally correct principles, because, as Edmond Burke said:  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing.”


You may ask,  “ What good could an Independent American do in the State Senate and transform the Legislature into a functional body once again?”   It is simple, I could reach across the aisle to either Republicans or Democrats to get things done on Constitutionally sound and fiscally conservative issues.  I could reach across the aisle to both party members on Health Freedom issues, on  Privacy concerns, restoring due process of law (4th Amendment) and property right issues, on reforming election law in this state, campaign finance reform, state sovereignty, in restoring our second amendment rights, as well; thereby transforming the dysfunctional body into a more functional and correctly principled body of legislators.  I can bring up concerns of individual citizens such as water issues with the NSA and Facebook server farm outrageous water usage, or state tax reform and serious budget cuts, even zero-based budgeting?  Afterall, zero-based budgeting is good for every Utah household and why not apply it to state agencies and the state legislature?


This is the year to elect an Independent American – who is the lone challenger to a 16 year incumbent – instead of voting for a professional politican who has already had 16 years in the job.  As Orrin Hatch said in 1978,  “12 IS ENOUGH!”


Property Rights

Now is a season of confusing political interests and ideas. People want this special interest or that special interest, or one candidate has a different view and opinion than another candidate; all because of what maybe promised if a certain candidate is elected. What is a voter to do, especially during this season of confusing politics?

To make the best and educated decisions we only have to return to the basics! Those basic principles include God’s laws and the U.S. Constitution, which He gave to mankind to govern ourselves. The Constitution wasn’t anything really new, but was a continuance of the Mosaic Law, that God gave to the children of Israel, in order to govern themselves after leaving Egypt. Within these Sacred Laws we find such commandments as: “Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is they neighbor’s.” Both of these commandments deal with the right to be safe within one’s own property, safety to worship how one pleases, makes money as they please (intellectual property or ideas) as well as their physical property and money; the right to defend that property and all lives within that property.

We read in James Madison’s (the “Father of the Constitution”) National Gazette article (dated March 29, 1792) where he boldly declares that ideas, money, religious beliefs, as well as one’s physical property need to be protected at all costs; that this was government’s sole purpose. Then we read John Adam’s (one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence) 1787 writings to learn what is at stake at not protecting property rights.

          “Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other moveables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of man- kind as real as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of everything be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”

Now let us look at the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution (Article 6 Section 2) and the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights).  The first amendment protects our free speech, association and freedom of conscience (religious liberty).  The second amendment protects all of our prop-erty rights, either against criminals, invaders from other lands, or even our own government.  It is our right to defend our property with whatever we see fit.  The third amendment prohibits the government at any level from quartering their troops (or government agents) within our property.  The fourth amendment prohibits government from seizing our property, and further declares that we must be safe within our property:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fifth Amendment deals with several aspects but only one effects property rights, the concept of eminent domain. This specifically addresses and even forces any level of govern-ment to pay ‘fair compensation for property’ that they need to purchase for necessary projects.  It is NOT a pass for government to seize and pay whatever they deem as ‘just’ for that property (that is proper ‘eminent domain’).  The property owner is at all times in control of the sale of his property, or should be.  This amendment guarantees this right.  (It also mentions grand juries, self incrimination, due process [as does the sixth amendment] and double jeopardy, too; but they don’t really deal with property, which is the subject of this paper.)

The seventh and eighth amendments protect our ideas and our money; ideas/money may be protected via a civil law suit, and they address a prohibition against excessive fees and punishments.

Statement Against the Proposed City Budget 6/16/15

In order to build for the future, we must build a solid foundation. How can we build this solid foundation off of tax/fee hikes? How can we build for the future by taking money from some just to give it to someone else? We understand that the people voted for a 39 million dollar debt on the new Recreation Center, but do they know of the interest attached to that debt which they did not vote for? Making the cost totaling a minimum of fifty million dollars? Isn’t that center paying for itself monthly and yearly? Why the need for a new RAP tax? The city for the last six years also has been running debts totaling millions on new city parks, all without a vote from the people!
We are not opposed to these things, just the manner that they are conducted. We shouldn’t levy burdensome debt for future generations, and even worse propose tax hikes down the road to pay for that debt! Isn’t a much wiser policy to save up for such projects? We should pay as we go! That is the American way!
Two years ago the administration pushed for a new road tax in order to pay for the roads, but yet in this proposed budget the administration is seeking additional monies to fund the roads. This road tax passed by the way. What roads have been repaired and or repaved?
These last six years the utility bill continues to go up and up and up, and yet in the administration’s proposed budget he wants to increase such rates yet again by as much as 20% and 80% within these next 6 years! Can the people truly afford this, especially since there has been an exodus from Provo? (Please see the Yahoo News article titled the fifteen fastest shrinking cities) There hasn’t been a tax or a fee increase that the current administration has not liked!
There is a line out there that says “Don’t talk to be about limited government, unless you’re willing to talk about taxes!” Meaning if we don’t raise taxes or if we cut taxes, then government is forced to cut itself naturally. Isn’t this a much wiser policy in order to build for the future? In order to grow the city?
Provo City candidates Jason Christensen for City Wide Council and Clinton Rhinehart for District 1 both think this way. They both believe if we adopt a city charter or otherwise known as a city constitution. We can as a city build this solid foundation for the future. They both see Provo becoming not only a shining light on a hill for this entire State of Utah to look at, but a Shining light up on a hill for the entire Nation to take notice.
In closing please vote NO on this utility bill hike. Vote NO on this proposed RAP tax. Vote NO on this proposed property tax hike. Let us move forward with the solutions that has been mentioned here, and let us all stand united in the cause of Liberty and make Provo shine like we all know that she can.

Education, Our Current Problems And What Are The Solutions?

      It is my hope that Utah voters can unite behind the common goal of restoring our system of proper governance, as well as our treasured traditions of sound educational approaches.  We must stop the current abuses that have metastasized in our education system, and correct the problems that have become so widespread. I share the view which was held by many of the Founding Fathers, as well as so many other wonderful current patriots, that education should start first in the home.  The closer the education process is to the home, the more effective it is to facilitate sound education of the child.  Education carried beyond the home should be closely controlled and directed within the immediate community.  Instances requiring individual States to become involved in the direction of education within the State should be minimized.  In no case should education be handed over to the federal and or national government. Education in America used to be the most dynamic and best in the world until the national government over-stepped its constitutional bounds and began to usurp the local and State power to educate our children (see the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution).  Since the nineteen sixties the national government has become more and more involved in the rearing of our children.  This practice has traditionally been considered un-American, and evokes the doctrines espoused in the Tenth Plank of Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” and John Dewey’s “Humanist Manifesto.”  Both Marx’s and Dewey’s philosophies promote their socialistic agenda and an atheistic world view at the expense of the traditional “Americanist” perspective which promoted God and His Laws and Commandments.
John Dewey is considered by many to be the “Father of Modern American Education,” so his philosophies have come to permeate the modern education system.  John Dewey’s  following comments speak volumes about the disaster that threatens the American education system and facilitates the destruction America’s traditional values, attitudes and beliefs:“I believe that all reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward arrangements are transitory  and futile.”“I believe that the community’s duty to education is, therefore, its paramount moral duty. By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But, through education, society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move.”

“Religious humanists regard the universe as self-excising and not created.”

“A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”

“We consider the religious forms of ideas of our fathers no longer adequate.”  ( John Dewey)

These  quotations are only the tip of the iceberg of what the progressives have envisioned for our educational system since the 1870’s, and by carefully reading these quotations it becomes clear that they promote force to require our children be submitted to the State for the State to re-educate them based on what predictably would become a politicized social agenda. Perhaps this understanding will help explain why there have been needless curfew and or truancy laws with Fourth Amendment violations written within ordinances purported to be “education ordinances.” Many examples could be cited of such egregious violations, such as fines and procedures for those that wish to home school their children. Many other previously un-American practices which have crept into the education system could also be mentioned, such as bans of certain books since the Wagner Act, or the fact that revisionists have successfully re-written American history (such as no longer teaching George Washington’s magnificent “Farewell Address” in the schools, and teaching that presidents Woodrow Wilson and both Roosevelts were good men that did great things for the nation). Astonishingly, a few years ago the Alpine School District in Utah County attempted to ban the teaching of the U.S. Constitution in the schools, and to teach more on a world democratic society (in conformance with the “Humanist Manifesto”).

In contradiction of nearly 150 years of historical and court precedent, and without ANY previous court rulings to justify their action, back in the early 1960’s the U.S. Supreme Court highhandedly stripped God out of the American public schools.  In Engel v. Vitale they banned school prayer, and in Abington School District v. Schempp, they banned the reading of scriptures over the intercom systems. Contravening one source of guidance the founders of our nation looked towards while drafting our Constitution and in their personal lives, they banned the Ten Commandments in the case Stone v. Graham.  Sadly, the list of instances where God has been stripped out of the rearing of our children and replaced with the State’s agenda of such theories as organic evolution and atheism is expansive.

It is my hope that we can as a nation return to a sound policy of parental rights, as well as returning to the God of this land, Jesus Christ himself. If we did, we as a nation could once again restore our education system to that of superiority over the entire world. Following the sound advice and counsel of religious teachers and leaders of years past will help us achieve these goals.

In 1887 Princeton theologian Dr. A. A. Hodge wrote:
“It is capable of exact demonstration that if every party in the State has the right of excluding from the public schools whatever he does not believe to be true, then he that believes most must give way to him that believes least, and then he that believes least must give way to him that believes absolutely nothing, no matter in how small a minority the atheists or the agnostics may be. It is self-evident that on this scheme, if it is consistently and persistently carried out in all parts of the country, the United States system of national popular education will be the most efficient and wide instrument for the propagation of Atheism [and humanism] which the world has ever seen.”

Utah religious and political leader John Taylor said:
“We must study from the best books…. Train your children to be intelligent and industrious…. They should also be taught regarding the earth on which they live, its properties, and the laws that govern it…. They should know how to cultivate the soil in the best possible manner; they should know how to raise the best kind of fruits adapted to the soil and climate; they should be induced to raise the best kinds of stock, and to care for them properly…. Again, the subject of architecture should receive attention from you; and your children should be encouraged to improve in the building of houses, and not be satisfied to merely copy after what their fathers did in the days of their poverty…. It is highly necessary that we should learn to read and write and speak our own language correctly; and where people are deficient themselves in education they should strive all the more to see that the deficiency be not perpetuated in their offspring.”

My vision of how to correct this very important issue of education needs to be attacked from all fronts:

The first step is for the State Legislature to nullify within the State the law that created the U.S. Department of Education, and return that responsibility back to the State of Utah. This would restore the way that Utah once managed our own education system before the federal government stepped into the picture.

Second, we must return the responsibility back to the parents and allow them to choose how and when to teach their own children.  Along with this step we must repeal the laws and penalties associated with the home school program as well as any other law and or penalty associated with the parents wanting to simply check their children out of public school for whatever reason.

Third and fourth, since it is written in our State Constitution to provide for public education, this will take money to do it right.  I propose to issue a repossession order on the federal government over the lands that they promised to cede to us at the time of Utah achieving Statehood in 1896, and then selectively selling off that land to individuals (not corporations) in order to pay for our State-mandated education system.

With our current State government’s addiction problems with federal money, and the certainty that the feds will withhold that money from our State as we start to show a legal back bone, the State must consider reversing the means of collecting the federal income tax. To do so I propose that the State Legislature exercise their constitutional responsibility and within our State nullify the law that created the IRS, repeal our own income tax, and then collect the federal income tax ourselves in our own ways to be forwarded to the national government in compliance with the 16th amendment.

Fifth, we must encourage the different churches to re-establish their own schools once again within the local communities. If we do all of this we can then dramatically reduce the class room sizes. These locally-controlled schools may hire skilled, God fearing teachers, and restore the individual responsibility and freedom to teach our own children in the ways that we as well as God knows best.



The Threat to Liberty is another Constitutional Convention.

For the past six years now I, as well as many other Honorable patriots have been fighting this threat. This threat that has started recently by my own State of Utah elected officials! I have written a plethora of articles of warning individuals of this threat, I have even sounded the battle cry to defeat Rep. Brad Daw,  but because of recent circumstances those articles are now gone. So in the interest of time I am posting a opt ed piece,  as  well as a clarion call to all that may read this to take immediate action. Both of which were written by my mentor and closest friend Dr. Scott N. Bradley.

To all who love the United States Constitution and the Blessings of liberty it preserves:

I apologize for the length of this message, but understanding is critically important in this battle to preserve the blessings of liberty which were vouchsafed to us at such great cost.  Please consider this matter as something upon which the liberty of your unborn posterity rests.  Please read this, gather to the cause all who you can influence, and take action.

Thank you!

—Scott N. Bradley

Constitution-Convention Threat Originating in Utah

Tragically, Utah’s Legislature is in the forefront of the effort to call a constitution convention.  Advocates of this effort call it by many names to obfuscate the risk, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

House Joint Resolution (HJR) 8, sponsored by Republican representative Kraig Powell, is moving through the legislative process and is currently under consideration in the House Government Operations Committee.  HJR 8 is a resolution which, if passed through the Utah Legislature, will result in Utah being added to a growing number of States which have applied to the United States Congress for the call of a convention.

The process by which the United States Constitution may be modified is defined in Article V of the United States Constitution.  To date, all 27 of the amendments to the Constitution have passed through both the U.S. House and Senate using the first and safest method, with 2/3’s margins in both houses, and being ratified by 3/4’s of the States.  The other option of a convention has never been applied since the ratification of the work of the 1787 Constitution Convention.  Certainly, other conventions have been held for many other purposes, but NONE of them have ever claimed the power to originate an amendment to the Constitution.

The un-tried and un-proven second method of modifying the Constitution requires 2/3’s of the States (34 States) to apply to congress for a convention, and then congress is required to call a convention.

Because of the unmeasured risks associated with a convention such as is being sought by HJR 8 and dozens of other similar resolutions currently under consideration throughout the United States, in 2001 the Utah legislature rescinded its previous calls for a convention in a near unanimous vote.

This year the movement to call such a convention has exploded upon the nation as a highly organized, cleverly disguised, powerfully promoted, and extremely well funded movement.  Advocates that have sought for many years to modify the document which has vouchsafed the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity for over 200 hundred years are co-opting good and caring Americans into support of this effort through fear.  Our magnificent Constitution is under assault as never before in our history.

The amendment movement is co-opting “conservative” issues that have developed (such as HUGE budget deficits) because those who hold the reigns of government have abandoned the limits and bounds defined within the plain English words of the United States Constitution.  To be blunt: They are violating the Constitution and have cast off their oath to uphold the Constitution.  The general population of the nation is guilty of continually returning these sycophants to office and are therefore party to these violations of the Constitution and the resulting problems.

In addition, there is a massive “left wing” “Move to Amend” movement which wants to see a convention called so they can manipulate the convention to their desired ends.  (See


An amendment, or a series of amendments, are not necessary and will not solve the nation’s challenges.  Those who hold office do not currently follow the Constitution.  We delude ourselves in thinking they will honor a new amendment.  We also delude ourselves in the hope that the delegates who attend the proposed convention if it is called will be made up of any other than the current crop of “leaders” who have crafted the disaster which currently faces the nation, whether they are selected from those who currently hold national office, or those who currently sit in the States and sop up the tasty unconstitutional pork proffered to the States by the national government.

While the advocates of the convention process promote the idea with great and naive hope as to its result, no one can predict and really knows the outcome of a convention (or two, or three or more conventions which will likely follow-on).  Despite flowery and eloquent promotion, it is ALL based upon supposition.  I am not willing to risk the United States Constitution on someone’s hopeful opinion.

We MUST stop the effort to call a convention.  Utah must take the lead in the effort to keep the Constitution from hanging in the balance—by a thread, if you will.

PLEASE contact the members of the House Government Operations Committee and implore them to defeat HJR 8 in the committee. Tell them it is imperative that the resolution NOT be advanced to the floor of the House.  The telephone number of the Utah House is 801-538-1029.  If you call the number, ask the operator to pass a note to the desired representative with your counsel.

In addition, PLEASE keep an eye on the Utah Legislature web site to discover when this committee will take public testimony on this resolution so you can (PLEASE) TAKE THE TIME TO TESTIFY REGARDING YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS RESOLUTION.

Following are the members of the House Government Operations Committee:

Rep. Jack R. Draxler (R), Chair email:
Rep. Ken Ivory (R), Vice Chair (Ardent advocate of the convention effort as long as he has been in the legislature.  He will likely seek to manipulate any contact made with him by those against a convention to further his efforts to call a convention.  He is a national advocate and spokesman for a convention and is fully and unequivocally committed to a convention.)
Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck (D)  email:
Rep. Janice M. Fisher (D)  email:
Rep. Keith Grover (R)  email:
Rep. John G. Mathis (R)  email:
Rep. Michael E. Noel (R)  email:
Rep. Lee B. Perry (R)  email:
Rep. Kraig Powell (R) (Sponsor of the resolution to seek a convention—HJR 8)
Brian J. Bean, Policy Analyst

Following are two papers addressing the issue of proposed conventions.

The first is a paper which I recently wrote which addresses the plethora of efforts which are under way to call conventions to change the Constitution.

The second is an excellent paper which Bliss Tew wrote to Val Peterson, a member of the Utah House, and some of the members of the House Government Operations Committee.

Perhaps some of the information found herein will be of value as you contact members of the legislature or seek to educate those you may influence in the matter.

The Epidemic of Calls for a Convention to Modify the United States Constitution
Scott N. Bradley
January 2014

The efforts to call a convention to modify the United States Constitution have reached epidemic proportions.  Numerous organizations have sprung up in favor of such an undertaking.  Virtually all are highly organized, powerfully promoted, and well funded.  They have succeeded in obtaining the endorsement of many in positions of prominence.  They promote a spectrum of approaches to bring about their intention to change the Constitution.  The Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of the people to alter or abolish their government and institute new government when their government does not secure the God-given rights they were instituted to preserve.

The United States Constitution incorporated in Article V of the Constitution a peaceful means by which that self-evident truth may be carried out:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Notwithstanding the numerous other methods and nuances promoted by the various proponents fostering their “flavor” of “convention,” Article V of the United States Constitution defines the ONLY constitutional method.  There is no other way to bring a convention about under the Constitution.  There are innumerable other possible ways to alter or abolish the government, but none of them are found under the terms defined within the Constitution.  And Article V of the Constitution is the sum and substance of the matter to date.  Numerous procedures to define the convention process have been proposed over the years, and many are promoted today, but NONE have been codified.  And efforts to create a “bullet-proof” codification of binding rules under which a convention (under any name by which it may be denominated) must be viewed with skepticism.

The truth of the matter is that a convention undertaken to modify the United States Constitution would be an autonomous deliberative body which may (or may not) undertake its proceedings within limited bounds based upon initial instructions it receives upon its calling.  The 1787 Convention was constituted “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation . . .”   The Articles of Confederation was the then-existing constitution of the United States, and the definition of “revising” as noted in the charge of the 1787 Convention is “amending.”  The 1787 Convention clearly understood and recognized their autonomous independence, and the convention set aside the existing constitution and wrote an entirely new one.  While the Articles of Confederation had a requirement that ALL States approve ANY changes to the constitution, without the prior input or approval of the States, the Congress, or the People, the men of the 1787 Convention included in the new constitution a lower standard for ratification.  When that lower standard of nine States, rather than the thirteen States required under the then-existing constitution was reached, the new constitution was considered fully approved and ratified.  Fortunately, the men of the 1787 Convention were good and noble men, well seasoned in the principles of liberty and properly limited government, so the outcome of the convention and ratification led to the United States becoming the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most respected, and most happy nation on earth for many generations.

Even in his day, soon after the Constitution was ratified, James Madison received a suggestion that the nation undertake another convention.  The United States Constitution was ratified during the Summer of 1788, so after that point a convention as defined under Article V (as suggested by some today) would have been the necessary process.  In November of 1788 James Madison responded to the suggestion of another convention as follows:

“If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.”

Elsewhere I have written:

“Some will argue that Madison’s term “General Convention” means something different than the type of convention which could be called under Article V of the Constitution, that it means a convention called for the specific purpose of creating a new constitution.  However, “general” was often used during the founding era as pertaining to the national government as the general government. If used in that way, the term applies to any national convention to deal with the national constitution.  To examine how the Founding Fathers used the term, we may examine how Founding Father Noah Webster defined the term in his1828 American Dictionary, which defines “general” thus:

“1. Properly, relating to a whole genus or kind; and hence, relating to a whole class or order.  4. Public; common; relating to or comprehending the whole community; as the general interest or safety of a nation.”

“Regardless of the exact way he used the term, Madison expresses his concern about how another convention will overstep its charter, become extremely politicized, and become dangerous to the nation.  If Madison was concerned about the risks in his day, who would be so foolish to suggest that today we are in a political environment that is better suited to bring forth more sound doctrines of liberty and proper government?

“. . . . Where in all the world today may we find even one or two statesmen of the character and understanding exhibited by George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, James Wilson, James Madison, and the others who, under the inspiration of God, framed our marvelous Charter of Liberty: The United States Constitution?  We will search the world in vain for such individuals.  Who, today, will sit in the seats occupied by those who brought forth the Constitution of 1787?  NONE I would trust!”

The images of conventions today which are put out for public consumption are toothy “grip and grin” photo opportunities.  Cheering, enthusiastic party-faithful crowds are the background fodder for the unity promoted to assure the success of the convention’s effort.  The truth of the matter is that conventions for political undertaking are often slow motion bare knuckle brawls for power as the various factions wrestle for supremacy.  It has been observed that “government is not eloquence, it is not reason, it is force . . .”  Conventions for political purposes often are the embodiment of that axiom!

Hundreds of examples could be cited, but think of the skullduggery carried out in the convention environments in which Marx and Engels were selected to compile the Communist Manifesto in 1847, or the 1903 power struggle in the Second Party Congress between the Bolschevik and Menshevik factions, or the Beer Hall Putschs of the National Socialists during the 1920’s, or the 1952 railroad job done on the Republicans by the Eisenhower machine when Taft was ousted.

Yes, the various proposals for conventions to modify the United States Constitution are well-polished marketing pieces designed to deflect and deny any suggestions of risk, but they are no guarantee of everybody playing nice and above board. The proposals are generally written in a benign style of academic earnest hopefulness, promoting a belief in the hope that the proposed undertaking could possibly take the desired trajectory and have the desired outcome.  They are filled with hopeful terms like “should,” “could,” “might,” “possibly,” “ought,” “probably,” “depending,” “likely,” “reasonable,” “promise,” “nearly,” etc.  These are terms that leave “wiggle room” in the outcome.  All of the supposition and wishful projections are not sufficient justification for the immeasurable risks potentially associated with losing the document that has been the Charter of the Nation and vouchsafed our liberties for 225 years.

The old adage applies to the wishful thinking of the proposals for a convention: “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”  All the wishful meandering and pontificating by those promoting a convention will not and cannot be guaranteed.

Regardless of the term by which the constitutional convention undertaking is obfuscated, be it a Constitution Convention, an Article V Convention, an Amendments Convention, a Conference of the States, or whatever, Article V of the United States Constitution says what it says (read it carefully):

“. . . on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments . . .”

When 2/3’s of the States apply, Congress SHALL call a convention.  And remember when the 1787 Convention was chartered it was for the purpose of amending the then-existing constitution.

Any variation on what the United States Constitution says in Article V about calling a convention is not constitutional, but may be another way to abolish the government.  Some of the current convention proposals suggest another approach, such as the thought that the States might band together in some kind of prearranged alliance that is intended to bring about changes.  This approach would arguably violate the Article I, Section 10 prohibition of States to enter into treaties, alliances, and confederations.

The bottom line is:  There is nothing wrong with the United States Constitution!  The problem is that the nation has stopped faithfully applying it.  Those who claim to love the Constitution and promote changing it are inconsistent.  If they love it they MUST abide by it.  ALL who hold office take an oath to the United States Constitution.  Those who hold office (and will likely sit in the seats of any convention which might be called) are oath-bound to uphold the Constitution.  Their actions in violation of the Constitution have led to the difficulties under which the nation currently suffers.  All of the challenges currently facing the nation are attributable to violations of the plain English words of the Constitution, and their original application.  Those who hold office ignore their oath, violate the Constitution at will, and are to be trusted to correct the resulting problems in a convention that could possibly eviscerate the Constitution of the limits and bounds which are already inherent in the document???!!!  One might reasonably ask: “Do we need an amendment that says ‘we really mean it this time?’” OF COURSE NOT!  The officers who violate the Charter of the Nation now will continue to violate it, even if modified.

And suppose for a moment a convention is called and it limits its actions to a single issue as some propose, and the issue successfully goes through the ratification process by 3/4’s of the States.  What does that encourage?  ANOTHER CONVENTION, AND ANOTHER, AND ANOTHER until the United States Constitution is a tattered rag that bears small resemblance to the original noble document, or it is ultimately scrapped altogether.  Either way, We the People lose.  And so do our posterity.

The corrective course is for We the People to become a virtuous people, well-schooled in the limits and bounds of the government bequeathed to us at such great cost in the body of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to educate our fellow-Americans in these principles, to promote them in word and deed, to elect soundly-founded representatives who will abide in their oath of office, and a willingness to correct any variance from the standard by those elected officials (or bureaucrats tasked with the responsibility to faithfully fulfill constitutional laws).

We do not need to “correct” the Constitution.  We and our officials must abide by it.  By so doing we will again become the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most respected, and most happy nation on earth.

—Scott N. Bradley

Bliss Tew’s letter:

Dear Utah State Representative Val Peterson:

Perhaps it has been forgotten that in February 2001 a resolution sponsored by Utah State Representative Fred Fife (D) to rescind Utah’s former applications to the U.S. Congress to call an Article V Convention was passed by both houses of Utah’s Legislature- HJR15.

HJR15 passed in the Utah house 67 to 0 with 8 absent. On February 27, 2001, if my diary is correct, the rescission resolution HJR15 passed the Utah Senate without a single dissenting vote. Those Utah legislators just thirteen years ago rescinded all previous applications to the U.S. Congress for the calling of an Article V Convention, called at the time a Constitutional Convention as it had been long labeled. Even though a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) had been the cause for which Utah had previously applied to Congress for Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments, nevertheless Utah’s legislature rescinded Utah’s applications.

But now the BBA is revived and a new national promotion of the idea is coming from radio talk show host Mark Levin, from retire professor Robert Natelson’s promotion through ALEC, Nick Dranias, Michael Farris, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. Surely we can trust these professors and pundits to have researched all the pitfalls, right? Maybe, maybe not. They certainly constitute a corroboratory media for those desiring the Convention call.

Is this question the most important concern Utah’s legislature will consider this year since the Constitution hangs upon the thread of your decision? This 2014 legislature, like the 2001 legislature, has a momentous choice to make- defend the Constitution or amend the Constitution.

HJR008, sponsored by Representative Kraig Powell, seems like a good “quick fix” to many legislators today if they have not yet had time to consider the drawbacks of initiating an Article V Convention for proposing amendments (plural) to our Constitution.  Opening such a Pandora’s Box and thinking that such a Convention can be held to one proposed amendment ignores the language of Article V itself and the fact that the deliberative Convention once called will be an autonomous Convention that will make its own rules. Who can guarantee that no delegates from the other 49 States will propose other Amendments, even harmful amendments to the Constitution at the Convention? Even if it were a misdemeanor to do so (that’s what the bill in Wyoming proposes) would delegates fear a misdemeanor charge when they could shape the Constitution?

Yes, there are lawyers in Utah’s legislature that are championing this process and assuring everyone that somehow the process can be contained and controlled. Perhaps we are supposed to feel assured by the opinions of lawyers, but those opinions are still merely opinions. The fact is that no Article V Convention has ever been called so we have yet to see what will happen at such a convention until it is called. We have in the past seen what happened at the 1787 Convention and perhaps that is the closest model we can look at to see what to expect, though even that Convention was not an Article V Convention since Article V was written at that 1787 Convention. That 1787 Convention actually changed the rules for ratification of its own production.

The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) being suggested has escape hatches provided in it for Congress to deficit spend in times of crisis or war. When are we not in a crisis and a war, or even more than one war? How will the budget be balanced? Will it be by Congress cutting spending? Nothing in the BBA requires that as the method of balancing the budget does it? Then how about raising taxes to balance the federal budget? Oh that is allowed by a BBA. How about expanding the money supply of paper money through turning up the printing presses? That is not forbidden either. So hyperinflation of the currency could be used to balance the budget as Abraham Lincoln’s government did to some extent during the Civil War when he had “green backs” that were not backed by gold or silver printed to pay for war costs. Money was created out of paper to an unlimited extent and spent by the war department as needed to acquired necessities of war, a type of inflationary hidden tax. Is that what the BBA will bring us?

Is there anything in the BBA that requires Congress to stop its spending upon unconstitutional departments created without regard to the few delegated powers the Constitution actually granted to Congress, or stop its spending undeclared wars and military adventures as a global cop for the UN and NATO, or unconstitutional giveaways like foreign aid? Nope.

Isn’t it true that the Congress has the power today to actually cut spending and balance the budget by a vote of 1 over 50%? Then, why the need for a BBA and an Article V Convention? Will Congress, who ignores the Constitution so often now, obey a new amendment? In what way will they obey it?  Is the BBA really just a handy cause célèbre to excite interest in convening the Article V Convention so that other revisions to the Constitution can be put forth? What special interests and hidden agendas are awaiting the Convention call?

Representative Peterson, Congress itself is a constant Amendments Convention isn’t it? Can’t Congress at any time propose amendments to the Constitution and pass such amendments by a 2/3rds vote on to the State legislatures or to the State Ratifying Conventions? Yes, Congress is empowered by Article V to do that. We have seen 27 amendments passed through Congress to the States, haven’t we? Are they all good amendments? How about the 16h Amendment or the 17th Amendment? Didn’t the States still ratify those arguably bad amendments?  Then, what if dozens of amendments are proposed at an Article V Convention, couldn’t some new amendments pass the States ratification process at the 16th and 17th amendments did and prove to be unwise amendments too? Sure. Proof is seen in historical fact, not just opinions, right? If one amendment emanating from Congress as a proposal is a consuming concern of debate for a legislature, what would happen if many proposed amendments come to the legislature from an Amendments Convention, would each amendment proposal get the deliberative attention it should have?

What about representation at the Article V Convention; who decides how many voting delegates each state will have? Congress decides don’t they, since Congress calls the Convention. We are assured by proponents of the Convention that representation will be based on “one state, one vote” as the model as that has been the case at other conventions, but where in Article V is such an arrangement specified? Oh, it is not specified. Then, what if California’s Congressional delegation wants a proportionality rule for number delegates. After all California has 53 U.S. Representatives, Wyoming has 1, Utah has 4, Montana has 1. Won’t the big states like California and New York desire to see democracy in action through proportionality of representation as is seen in the Electoral College and the U.S. House of Representative? Shouldn’t that be the case at an Article V Convention as well, they will ask. And they will outvote Utah in Congress upon that question won’t they?

Val, I urge you, let our legislature not apply to open the Article V Convention at this juncture, no matter what name the proponents call it by “Convention of the States,” or “Amendments Convention,” etc.,  but rather let us try other ways of addressing the problems we are facing with the U.S. Congress and President. The root of our problems remain an electorate made up of voters largely ignorant of their Constitution and therefore not holding Congress and the President accountable to the Constitution. The Constitution is the solution not the problem.

Please oppose HJR8. Defend the Constitution from the left-leaning coalition of hundreds of organizations just dying to see the Constitution opened to an Article V Convention for proposing amendments:

Kind Regards,
Mr. Bliss W. Tew- Utah Citizen
909 West 500 North
Orem, UT 84057

P.S. Yes, I am the Regional Field Director of The John Birch Society. Perhaps Rep. Ken Ivory who wants to see an Article V Convention called will make a point of my employment, but the information I’ve supplied is as true as any to consider. Just because The JBS has historically opposed the calling of an Article V Convention doesn’t mean JBS or JBS employees or members are somehow behind the times in our knowledge about Article V; quite the contrary. While I’ve read Mark Levin’s chapter in his book where he promotes an Article V Convention,  read Policy Reports by Robert Natelson on the topic, and even talked with leading-proponents of the Convention, I remain unconvinced by their assurances that they can hold a limited convention.  Instead of the Convention route, if you’d like to discuss ideas of other ways to address our problems with the Federal government I’m at your disposal.

CC: selected members of the House Government Operations Committee: Rep. Jack R. Draxler (R), Chair, HGOC, Rep. Keith Grover (R)  , Rep. John G. Mathis (R)  , Rep. Michael E. Noel (R)

The Ploys of Discrimination

Before I speak to you today as to certain evil agendas, let me first say that it is simply wrong for anyone to be discriminated against, and that all men have certain inalienable rights before ones maker. Those rights includes the right to own and be safe with in ones own property. The right to defend ones self, family, and country men. The rights for free speech and worshiping of one’s God. These God given rights with in the United States of America are supposed to be protected by our Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution. “Article 6 Section 2″

Lets spend a little time with Property Rights. In Exodus 20:15 “Thou shall not steal” which presupposes the basic right and acknowledgment that each individual owns his or her own property, and that it is a sin to steal that property. In Exodus 20:17  “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” To covet means “to desire inordinately; to desire that which it is unlawful to obtain or possess; in a bad sense.” Then the words “thy neighbor’s”  admits to the fact that property is being owned by ones neighbors. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord said this regarding to property, and our rights. “We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.” In Ether 14:2 we read “Wherefore every man did cleave unto that which was his own, with his hands, and would not borrow neither would he lend; and every man kept the hilt of his sword in his right hand, in the defence of his property and his own life and of his wives and children.”

Since I mentioned the US Constitution lets look at the fourth amendment. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Which once again would presuppose that property is to be owned and that one has a legal constitutionally binding right to be safe with in such property. In the Fifth Amendment we read “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Which clearly indicates that property is NOT to be seized or violated unless that property is justly compensated to the owner themselves, upon the owner’s approval. John Adams wrote this regarding Property Rights “Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.…The moment
that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of god, and that
there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.” Then the Father of the Constitution James Madison wrote this regarding Property “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well as that which lies in the various rights of individuals…. this being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures, to every man, whatever is his own.”

Now you may be asking what does property rights have anything to do with discrimination ordinances? It is simple, in this day and age it is the very ones fighting for homosexuality that are promoting these “discrimination” ordinances. They are seeking for and many cases have succeeded government to mandate property owners to rent to such persons, despite ones free will and choice. They force businesses with in their own property to hire such persons, regardless of the business model. If we look at the State of California and other State’s laws regarding such matters they even force property owners to implement transexual bathrooms. Utah is attempting to institute such an atrocity. In cities like Provo and others where property rights violations have exceeded over 5000, and is currently working on a “discrimination” ordinance. Which would only allow that number of property rights violations to sky rocket.

Could you only imagine if a family oriented business with the reputation of promoting family values is forced to hire someone that promotes the contrary? Could you only imagine that a renter that religiously believes in the practice of homosexuality as a sin is forced against his or her will to rent to such persons living contrary to their beliefs? Could you only imagine that churches that believes that homosexuality is a sin is forced to adopt their bathrooms to adopt transsexual restrooms? Could you imagine that private or public owned schools is forced to adopt transexual locker rooms and rest rooms?

Fact of the matter these people are only pandering to the evil communistic agenda. Lets read goals 25, 26, 27 of the communistic goals for world domination published by the FBI in the Congressional library in 1963.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

A well known fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw had this to say regarding property. “Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population.”
Then the first goal of the Communist Manifesto reads. “First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.”

In closing lets all pray together, work together, and restore the Law of this land, the US Constitution. Let’s restore our God given rights as Americans, and lets repent and worship the God of this Land the Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, amen.